Islam Versus The West: We Cannot Say That We Were Not Warned

Americans recently commemorated the 25^th anniversary of the deadly terrorist attacks that shocked the entire world on September 11, 2001. Without question, that event was one of the most earth-shaking events of our nation’s history. Shockingly, it is also one of the most misremembered and misrepresented events of our times.

We now know that the Clinton administration had been warned about the possibility of a massive terrorist attack led by Osama bin Laden and his forces aligned with Al-Qaeda. Those warnings had been passed on to the incoming George W. Bush administration, which was nonetheless taken by surprise when the 9/11 attacks took place at a scale far deadlier than previously imagined. There was absolutely no question that the attacks had been motivated by Islamic ideology and undertaken by Islamist forces. Nevertheless, President Bush argued that the terrorists were not motivated by Islam itself, but by a depraved ideology that wrongly claimed Islamic credibility.

The same kind of evasion — and worse — characterized the Obama administration from beginning to end, and it remains the official argument promoted not only by government officials, but by most figures in liberal academia and among intellectual elites.

That situation is now made more complex, and more dangerous, by the waves of immigration and a fast-growing Muslim population within the United States, made visible by a vast program of mosque building across the nation. Muslim candidates, with some now associated or linked to the Democratic Socialists of America, have appeared all over the nation, from Manhattan to Michigan, even as Muslim populations raise tensions in places like Texas.

The true nature of Islam is rarely acknowledged by those who control so much of our nation’s public conversation. Indeed, Americans are constantly told that there is no cause for alarm and no threat to our nation’s history of individual rights, ordered liberty, and self-government.

All this underlines the importance of Ayman Ibrahim’s brave new book, “Sharia Versus the U.S. Constitution: Why Americans Must Choose Freedom.” Ibrahim writes with remarkable candor and academic precision. He holds two academic doctorates in the field and heads an important academic center and a leading research program on the Christian understanding of Islam, I am proud to say, at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In his new book, Professor Ibrahim openly asks if Islam’s core commitment to sharia law is compatible with the U.S. Constitution. With remarkable accuracy and candor, Ibrahim reveals that no such compatibility exists. Indeed, sharia and American constitutionalism are fundamentally incompatible. It’s not just an awkward fit; it is a contradiction.

As Ibrahim states, “The first concept Americans need to understand is that sharia is not like Christian moral teaching, which addresses the soul and leaves civil governance to secular institutions. Sharia is a comprehensive and uncompromising political and legal order. It was designed not only to govern a believer’s personal relationship with Allah, but to regulate courts, criminal penalties, warfare, governance, marriage, the treatment of women, and the legal status of non-Muslims.” He concludes, “There is no equivalent in Western religious traditions.”

Furthermore, “Sharia — in its classical, authoritative form, as derived from the Quran, the Hadith, and the accumulated rulings of Islamic jurisprudence — is a legal and political order that is fundamentally incompatible with the United States Constitution.” He adds: “This distinction is not a matter of cultural preference or religious prejudice. It is a matter of direct, specific, point-by-point conflict.”

Ibrahim makes the truth plain in an academically precise and honest way. With surgical skill, he underlines the nature of Islam as a civilizational monoculture that must be established through force and Islamic domination. Its texts, laws, and teachings require the global transformation of Dar al-Harb (the House of War) into Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam). The suburbs of North Dallas may not yet look like the House of War, but all Muslims are to strive for the eventual conquest of the world into the House of Islam.

Once the Islamic texts are considered, the picture in the U.S. comes into clearer focus. Those politicians and public figures who identify with Islam are either on board with the civilizational vision of Islam, right down to sharia law, or they represent a form of Islam that would be repudiated throughout the Muslim world as apostate. At this point, they use American pluralism as a cover for a struggle to bring Islamic rule to the nation.

As Ibrahim affirms, “Classical Islam does not operate on the principle of pluralism. It operates on the principle of Islamic hegemony — the supremacy of Islamic governance over all other systems.” Most importantly, this conquering vision of Islam is not just one form of Islamic thought. “This goal is not a fringe Islamism,” Ibrahim states clearly. “It is classical Islamic theology, derived from Muhammad’s own commands and from the Quranic obligation of sawah — calling people to convert to Islam — and jihad — the struggle to make Allah’s word and rule supreme on earth.”

“Sharia Versus the U.S. Constitution” is a brave and timely book. It also shows respect for classical Islam by taking its teachings and claims seriously. Ayman Ibrahim’s argument is urgent and important. Islam reveals itself to be fundamentally incompatible with democracy and the U.S. Constitution. Americans cannot say that they were not warned.

***

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Boyce College, host of The Briefing, and Editor of WORLD Opinions.